Will Warner support Blu-ray part 2 ?

[iknowall]

iknowall is a plagiarist.
He lacks even the competence to rewrite those sentences in his own voice.

Oh sorry if i don't waste my time trying to rewrite a concept just for your in a language that is not mine.

You are now officially on my ignore list, it's pointless to debate a hardheaded intellectual poseur who plagiarizes other people's work and passes it off as his own.

It's pointless to bebate with who don't have any clue about the video compression and say that at an hi bitrate mpeg4 give better result.

Just asked in the AVS forum at Tom McMahon (mpeg2/4 eng and Smpte member) more clarification about this Amirm expression on what "hi bitrare" amirm talk about here :

if the bit rate is sufficient high,
then any compression technology works just as well as the other"

Here his answare :

Tom McMahon said that this point is 40Mbit/sec.


So you was wrong from the beginning in the whole mpeg4 hi bitrare statement , case closed.

 

[DemoCoder]

Oh sorry if i don't waste my time trying to rewrite a concept just for your in a language that is not mine.

Why didn't you use the QUOTE functionality of the forum like you usually do? You had no problem documenting the source of your quotes and their links in the past.

The fact is, you lied. You tried to pass off knowledge as your own. You've been busted. You are utterly incapable of arguing on your own. You are nothing more than a search engine quotation machine, who understands compression about as much a a worker in Searle's Chinese Room understands chinese.

Ignore on.

 

[iknowall]

Why didn't you use the QUOTE functionality of the forum like you usually do? You had no problem documenting the source of your quotes and their links in the past.

Are you dense ? I stated clearly in my thread that i used an internet definition after i used it :

this is no enough to make anyone an expert, since a real expert is the one who actually spend a month in the lab with the encoding eng trying to get an exellent video quality, not one who repeat exactly every definition he can read on the internet.

oh sorry if i did not gave you the exact source also.

The fact is, you lied.
You tried to pass off knowledge as your own. You've been busted. You are utterly incapable of arguing on your own. You are nothing more than a search engine quotation machine,

See above i stated clearly i taked a perfect english definition from the internet in my thread, i could not have do overthise since i don't know how to make a perfect translate of the same concept from my native language

My multilanguage skill have nothing to do with my knowledge.

who understands compression about as much a a worker in Searle's Chinese Room understands chinese.
Ignore on.

The only one who have no knowledge about the mpeg compression is you with this statement proved to be wrong :

H.264 and VC-1 at 80mpbs will have higher quality than MPEG-2 at 80mpbs, period.

H.264 can produce better quality than MPEG-2 at both high bit rates and low bit rates.

if the bit rate is sufficient high,
then any compression technology works just as well as the other

Tom McMahon say that this bitrare is about 40 Mbps.



I don't have anything to add more at this, you are proved to be wrong.

 

[-tkf-]

:
I don't have anything to add more at this, you are proved to be wrong.

Thanks, because you have not proven shit.

If would be nice if you would actually dare to link to the thread on the AVS forum where you asked the question.

Instead thanks to Democoder and other good people on this board you have made them produce examples and evidence on how much MPEG2 sucks compared to h.264.

You still haven't answered my simple question, how do you expect h.264 to look worse than MPEG2 @ 35mbit which is the theoretical bitrate required for 1080p if we want to keep the same "pixel quality" as we have on DVD's know.. which is NOT TRANSPARENT ANYWAY and could really use IMPROVEMENT!

 

[iknowall]

Thanks, because you have not proven shit.

If i did not gave a link is why i just sent pvt to Tom asking direclty to him this question.

Contact Tom and ask at Him if this is really an answare he gave me.

Do you really think i woluld say this if this would not be true ?

If would be nice if you would actually dare to link to the thread on the AVS forum where you asked the question.

No problem i will post also his answare on the forum. Right now the avsforum is down.
I will do when it get up again.

Instead thanks to Democoder and other good people on this board you have made them produce examples and evidence on how much MPEG2 sucks compared to h.264.

You still haven't answered my simple question, how do you expect h.264 to look worse than MPEG2 @ 35mbit which is the theoretical bitrate required for 1080p if we want to keep the same "pixel quality" as we have on DVD's know.. which is NOT TRANSPARENT ANYWAY and could really use IMPROVEMENT!

I answared preddy good alredy, i CAN expect it because for the lack of experience and the less mature encoding tools actually is more easy and CHEAPER get a good mpeg2 encoding then a good mpeg4 encoding.

But I never said i expect h.264 to look worse than mpeg2 at 35Mbit/sec. , what i said is that there is an hi bitrate point where mpeg4 don't give you any more quality gain than mpeg2.

And this point is from 40Mbit/sec. like Tom stated.

 

[-tkf-]

But I never said i expect h.264 to look worse than mpeg2 at 35Mbit/sec. , what i said is that where is an hi bitrate point where mpeg4 don't give you any more quality gain than mpeg2.

And this point is from 40Mbit/sec. like Tom stated.

It's actually quite easy to test, take some uncompresse SD footage, make a 7mbit MPEG2 stream and compare it with a 7mbit VC-1 h.264 stream...

I think you will be surprised...

 

[iknowall]

It's actually quite easy to test, take some uncompresse SD footage, make a 7mbit MPEG2 stream and compare it with a 7mbit VC-1 h.264 stream...

I think you will be surprised...

And how this relate to the fact that at a bitrare of 40Mbit/sec. Mpeg4 don't give you more quality gain versus mpeg2 ?

I know and i alredy said that a low bitrare mpeg4 give a better result.


Have a nice day.

 

[Gubbi]

And how this relate to the fact that at a bittare of 40Mbit/sec. Mpeg4 don't give you more quality gain versus mpeg2 ?

Since h.264 has the same visual fidelity at less than half the bitrate compared to Mpeg-2 , h.264 could encode more than twice as many pixels per second for any given bitrate.

You could use this to either double up the pixels in the spatial domain (1280x720p -> 1920x1080p) or double up on refresh (1920x1080i -> 1920x1080p).

Any way you look at it H.264 (and VC-1/9) gives you better quality.

Now, stop arguing!

Cheers

 

[-tkf-]

I know and i alredy said that a low bitrare mpeg4 give a better result.

Thanks for the link, well you are certainly welcome if you have access to uncompressed 1080p stuff..

7mbit encode of 345600 pixels pr frame

6 times the bitrate and 6 times the resolution (1080p)

42mbit and 2073600 pixels pr frame

I may be wrong but i think it should be a good comparison, evethough i would think that h.264 and vc-1 should have a advantage with 1080p stuff

 

[iknowall]

Since h.264 has the same visual fidelity at less than half the bitrate compated to Mpeg-2 , h.264 could encode more than twice as many pixels per second for any given bitrate.

But at 40Mbit/sec. it do NOT give you 2x fidelty.

There is a point of diminishing returns for the advanced codecs.

More you go up with the bitrate, less is the better visual quality mpeg4 give you aganist mpeg2

You could use this to either double up the pixels in the spatial domain (1280x720p -> 1920x1080p) or double up on refresh (1920x1080i -> 1920x1080p).

Any way you look at it H.264 (and VC-1/9) gives you better quality.

Now, stop arguing!

Cheers

You are saying that mpeg4 give you 2x fidelty at ANY bitrate when Tom state clearly that from the point of 40Mbit/sec. mpeg4 give you no more than 1x video quality versus mpeg2

 

[DemoCoder]

It's pointless Gubbi. Don't waste your breath. He won't understand that if you can fit 1080i @ 40Mbps with MPEG-2, then you can fit 1080p with H.264 at the same bitrate. Nor does he understand that 1080p has greater quality than 1080i at the same frame rate. Nor would he understand that you could encode 4:2:2 @ 12-bit instead of 4:2:0 at 8-bit with the extra bandwidth.

That's because he doesn't seek to understand. He has a stubborn headed view based on ignorance, and all he does is cherry pick any supporting text he can find, whether he understands it or not.

 

[iknowall]

Well since no one want to say that i am right even with the evidence with me, i writed a message to amimr, here there is the reply he gave to me.

Since you are one of the programmer of the VC-1 codec you are the one who can give an answare on this :

Actually, I don’t write much code these days. However, I do understand compression quite well as that was the first group I managed at Microsoft.

"As to the last comment, it is true that if the bit rate is sufficient high, then any compression technology works just as well as the other" , can you quantify what "hi Bitrate " you think at ? At what bit rate you have no quality difference using mpeg2 or VC-1 ?

It will be subject dependent of course. But generally I would say that once you get to 50+ Mbit/sec, the difference between the codecs will be so small as to be missed by non-expert viewers.

Someone say 40Mbit/sec, someone state that only from
200Mbit/sec. you can get a difference from Vc1 and mpeg2.

200? I don’t see why anyone would want to go to such data rate regardless of this comparison. I have heard of data rates up to 100 Mbit/sec for MPEG-2 but that was for 4:4:4 encoding at up to 16-bits resolution. With current DVD formats we are talking about 4:2:0 at 8-bits so there is no need to go up that high even with MPEG-2.

The other issue is the decode performance of the hardware. As you increase the data rate, you require a lot more MIPS to decode. That is why there are limits for the data rate in both HD DVD and BD formats.

Can you tell the truth ?

Of course. And what I say will be confirmed by any expert in video compression.

If you explaine this i will post the answare and since you are a trusted source this will end the debate.

Feel free to do so.

Are you talkin about an hi bitrate that you can have on a dual layer blue ray disc ?

Well, 50 Mbit/sec is too high for BD format and for a 2-hour movie, would take up almost all the space there, leaving nothing for extras. We know the studios want to put in a lot of content on these discs so practical data rates for MPEG-2 will be lower than levels that would remove the advantage of advanced codecs.

Note that I am not saying that high rate MPEG-2 does not look good. It will. The question is why pay a premium and take on risks with availability of dual layer BD when the same job can be done with advanced codecs and dual layer HD DVD, NOW! Add hybrid capability to the same discs and you have a future proof offer for the consumer that BD can not match. Indeed, even when BD-50 becomes possible, it is liable to see little use because it will always cost more than BD-25 and few studios can justify using it just to avoid advanced codecs.

Can you also make a tecnical explanation of why at this bitrate you get the same video quality with both codecs ?

Well, not in a few words . And not without some knowledge of compression on behalf of the reader. The simplest analogy I can use is that if you take a sports car and an economy car, they both do well going 30 miles/hour straight. Push them into a corner at high speed and it is an entirely different matter. Likewise, if you give enough bits to both codecs, they both coast and don’t have to try hard to maintain quality. As the bit rate goes down, then more data is thrown out, causing visible artifacts. Advanced codecs such as VC-1 have better techniques (and math) to help them do a lot better than MPEG-2.

Thanks for takin your time with an answare and sorry for my bad english , it is not my native language

Your English is just fine.

Amir

This messagge is real, please anyone that think this messagge in not real to contact him
at the avs forum.

I also asked at him if he can make a post here.

 

[iknowall]

It's pointless Gubbi. Don't waste your breath. He won't understand that if you can fit 1080i @ 40Mbps with MPEG-2, then you can fit 1080p with H.264 at the same bitrate.

See above you make no sense going on saying that you can have a 50+ Mbit/sec. 1080p movie using mpeg4 but not with mpeg2.

Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 at 50Mbit/sec. will give the exact , the same result.

What you said here :

H.264 and VC-1 at 80mpbs will have higher quality than MPEG-2 at 80mpbs, period.

Is confirmed false again :

It will be subject dependent of course. But generally I would say that once you get to 50+ Mbit/sec, the difference between the codecs will be so small as to be missed by non-expert viewers.

 

[DemoCoder]

(why do I bother?)
First of all, Amir is not an unbiased source. I already showed on AVSFORUMs how he was spouting lies about BD-J vs IHD (claiming BD-J had over 10,000 methods, when it does not)

Secondly,

the difference between the codecs will be so small as to be missed by non-expert viewers.

This is effectively the case today, as many consumers can't tell the difference between a DVD upscaled and HD content. So this statement alone says nothing.

Amir also effectively demolished your entire line of reasoning that started this thread, since no one is going to ship 40-50Mbps MPEG-2, there isn't going to be any dual-layer 50GB bluray movies shipped soon, so MPEG-2 is not going to provide the highest quality in consumer space, which is 25GB discs. VC-1 and H.264 will provide higher quality on HD-DVD and BD because you can't fit a 40Mbps MPEG-2 stream with reasonable extras on a disc. Amir's whole line of reasoning pertains to consume displays and format, not to compression in general, since I could easily falsify it by encoding 4k resolution image with VC-1 vs the MPEG-2 equivalent and show it on a ultra-hidef display, like the one shown at the World's Expo in Japan.


Also, if 1080p can't look any better than MPEG-2 at 50Mbps, why were you claiming that 250Mbps DCI is going to be so good? Isn't 250MBps DCI a huge waste of time then? According to you, it was no content, but Amir's own statement casts your own DCI propaganda as a contradiction.

Finally, why not ask Amir, if 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 12-bit 1080p is distinguishable from 4:2:0 8-bit encoded 1080i.

 

[iknowall]

(why do I bother?)
First of all, Amir is not an unbiased source. I already showed on AVSFORUMs how he was spouting lies about BD-J vs IHD (claiming BD-J had over 10,000 methods, when it does not)

He have sure more credibilty and knowledge than you. And the fact that he work for Ms give him even more credibility because he would not have ANY advantage in saying that where is a point where using VC-1 or Mpeg2 don't make difference.


You state that at any bitrare mpeg4 give better result, even at 80Mbps.

And you can have a 50Mbit/sec. on a dual layer blu ray disk , if you don't put extra you can fit 2 hours of video, and the question was if this was a bitrate possible on a blu ray disk.

And what sai Amirm on 200Mbit/sec. was refered at the consumer level not for a DCI level.

DCI have nothing to do with the question i made at amirm and if you would have any clue about dcinema you would know that it use a 10bit standard not an 8bit consumer standard.

Finally you go again with the false statement that at any hig bitrare Mpeg4 can give you a 2x performance aganist mpeg2 to let you store a video with 2x the resolution.

 

[DemoCoder]

He have sure more credibilty and knowledge than you.

Actually, many people on AVS question Amir's credibility, due to his selective omission of facts when discussing HD-DVD vs BD.

You state that at any bitrare mpeg4 give better result, even at 80Mbps.

Yes, because bitrate controls how much resolution you can pack in. If the question was, given a *fixed* resolution, of say, 1080i, is there diminishing returns at higher bitrates, the answer would be yes. I don't think anyone here would object to the idea that there are diminishing returns to quality if you hold resolution constant.

However, the question was never "given resolution X and bitrate Y", it was "given bitrate Y". If you give me 40Mbps, then I'm not simply going to compress 720p or 1080i signals, that would be a waste. If anyting, I'd be using 1080p or 2k resolution. In which case, there certainly would be a quality difference, since if you try to squeeze a 8-megapixel resolution into 40Mbps with MPEG-2, the result is going to be more artifacts than the advanced codecs.


Amir prefaces his comments with "consumer", "DVD", and "4:2:0", which means, ATSC resolutions. The whole idea of what constitutes a "low bitrate" (where even you admit H.264 and VC-1 are superior) is predicated on RESOLUTION. 1Mbps is a "low bitrate" for HD video, but a high bitrate for mobile video.


That said, he exploded your dream of MPEG-2 on dual layer BluRay discs. It ain't happening. None of the movie studios are doing it anytime soon.

If you've got the guts, ask Amir what will perform better on a 2k or 4k resolution stream at 40Mbps, VC-1 or MPEG-2.

The question boils down to: Given bitrate X, what's the best you can do, resolution + distortion wise.

p.s. you're still a plagiarist who knows nothing and relies on searching for answers

 

[iknowall]

Actually, many people on AVS question Amir's credibility, due to his selective omission of facts when discussing HD-DVD vs BD.

Coming from someone who claim to have a "projector" that outclass many Dcinema projectors it sure matter what you say

I compared MPEG-2 to H.264 on a large screen using a large venue digital projector that I own, that outclasses the projectors in many dcinemas, and the result is that H.264 delivers less artifacts than MPEG-2 at the same bitrate.

Yes, because bitrate controls how much resolution you can pack in. If the question was, given a *fixed* resolution, of say, 1080i, is there diminishing returns at higher bitrates, the answer would be yes. I don't think anyone here would object to the idea that there are diminishing returns to quality if you hold resolution constant.

However, the question was never "given resolution X and bitrate Y", it was "given bitrate Y". If you give me 40Mbps, then I'm not simply going to compress 720p or 1080i signals, that would be a waste. If anyting, I'd be using 1080p or 2k resolution. In which case, there certainly would be a quality difference, since if you try to squeeze a 8-megapixel resolution into 40Mbps with MPEG-2, the result is going to be more artifacts than the advanced codecs.

Nope it was given resolution X since we where talkin about the Blue ray movie with a standard 1080p resolution and you claimed mpeg4 is superior also.

Now you try to change argument saying "but i meant a different resolution"

You was saying that the same clip with the same resolution with the same bitrate will always have more quality at hi bitrate with mpeg4.

You mentioned that "H.264 and VC-1 at 80mpbs will have higher quality than MPEG-2 at 80mpbs, period.It's been shown in several scientific studies by SMPTE and others."

And pointed out tests of the same clip with the same resolution encoded with mpeg2 and mpeg4 where ot say that at
16mbps they don't see the difference from the master and that an 8mbps mpeg4 ouperform a 20mbps mpeg2
all this the same resolution.

You also said you was a test of a Dcinema movie and VC-1 version looked better.

"Oh, and I also saw VC-1 up against D-Theatre, and the VC-1 version looked better."

Dcinema res is standard also so here you state that at the same resolution VC-1 give more quality

The problem is you wont undestand is that Mpeg4 wont give you the 2x compression ratio / same quality performance you get with a low bitrare.

That said, he exploded your dream of MPEG-2 on dual layer BluRay discs. It ain't happening. None of the movie studios are doing it anytime soon.

My dream ? We where simply talking about the fact that this is or not a bitrate possible on a blu ray disk, when it will be on the market is anothe thing.

If you've got the guts, ask Amir what will perform better on a 2k or 4k resolution stream at 40Mbps, VC-1 or MPEG-2.

And the same at 80Mbps and above like you said , at every hi bitrate.

 

[randycat99]

Absolutely on the mark, ika!

 

[DemoCoder]

Coming from someone who claim to have a "projector" that outclass many Dcinema projectors it sure matter what you say

It is well known that I own a Sanyo PLV-70, which when I bought it in 2002, outclassed the SVGA projectors being used in digital cinemas and still continues to do so today if you consider market penetration of high-end PJ's like the Barco. I saw Attack of the Clones twice in digital theatres, and both were inferior to my home setup. It was one of the first true 720p projectors, and it delivered 2200 lumens (real) at 900:1. Even today, many small to medium cineplexes that have "digital" projectors are reusing business slide projectors that they use for showing pre-show advertising.

The Sanyo PLV-70 is a large venue projector, designed for theater audiences, it's just not cutting edge in 2005 like it was in 2002. On the other hand, Sony's SXRD venue projectors of 2005 beat DLP projectors of 2005, and many AVSFORUMers own home HT setups that clearly beat the Barco on all image quality specifications. 1080p is becoming commodified now.


As for the rest of your comments, when I talk about compression, I talk about the algorithm itself, not the format, so resolution is allowed ot scale with bitrate. Now you want to talk about specific formats, well, BR format is 25GB, and MPEG-2 is going to be used at 24Mbps. So you lose the argument whether you talk in the abstract, or whether you want to talk real world specifics.

The idea of 40Mbps MPEG-2 on DL BD-ROM discs just ain't gonna happen. In reality, it's going to be H.264/VC-1 @ 16Mbps 1080p vs MPEG-2 @ 24Mbps @ 1080p.

 

[-tkf-]

I know and i alredy said that a low bitrare mpeg4 give a better result.

Ehmms since when is 7mbit h.264 at SD resolution a "low" bitrate?